Should Children Be Tried as Adults Essay

Juvenile Justice: Should children be tried as adults? Are youth capable of fully understanding the consequences that their actions may cause or are they mentally incapable of processing that information? Juveniles commit crimes just like adults. Sometimes the crimes they commit are heinous, but does that mean they are no longer a child? I believe there may be special cases when a youth should be tried as an adult, but in most cases, they need to be processed through the juvenile justice system.

In the last part of the 18th century, children under the age of seven were regarded as being incapable of understanding their actions and their consequences. They were exempt from punishment. However, once a child reached the age of seven, they could be put on trial, and if found guilty, be sent to prison or even executed for their crimes. In 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency was starting a movement that would separate juveniles from adult offenders. Most major cities soon had facilities that were exclusive for juvenile offenders.

We Will Write a Custom Essay SpecificallyFor You For Only $13.90/page!

Unfortunately, by the mid-century, most of the private facilities were under investigation for various abuses against the juvenile inmates. Shortly thereafter, many states took on the responsibility of operating the juvenile facilities. In 1899, Cook County, Illinois established the first juvenile court with the passing of the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. The Act used the British Doctrine of “parens patriae” as the rationale of the state’s right to intervene in the lives of children.

The doctrine was interpreted to mean that, because children were not of a legal capacity, the state had the inherit power and responsibility to provide protection for children whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. The courts focused on the welfare of children, so delinquent children were seen as in need of the courts intervention. By 1910, thirty-two states had juvenile courts or probation services in operation. The courts were changing their focus from punishing youth to using treatment to help transform them into citizens that would be able to benefit their community.

Over the next fifty years, juvenile courts had exclusive jurisdiction over all offenders under the age of eighteen. Children could only be tried as adults if the court waived its jurisdiction. All cases considered for transfer to an adult court were reviewed on a case-by-case basis with the consideration for the best interest of the youth and public. The juvenile court was much less formal than the adult court. Due process was deemed unnecessary, and attorneys for the state and for the youth were not an essential part of the system.

Dispositions were tailored to meet the best needs of the youth. Treatments would last until the youth was “cured” or the youth turned twenty-one. Between 1950 and 1960, the juvenile court’s ability to successfully rehabilitate youth came into question. It was not the idea of the rehabilitation system that was being questioned; it was the amount of juveniles being held indefinitely by the facilities in which they were being treated. During the 1960’s, the Supreme Court required that all juvenile courts become more formal, mirroring the adult court system.

Juveniles now had formal hearings, protection from self-incrimination, the ability to present witnesses, rights to receive notices against them, and the right to have an attorney. The Supreme Court did maintain that there were enough differences between the juvenile and adult court systems that a jury was not required for the juvenile justice process. In 1968, congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 which recommended that youth who have been charged with non-criminal offenses are to be handled outside of the court system.

In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 1974 was passed by congress. This act required the deinstitutionalization of offenders and non-offenders as well as the separation of juvenile delinquents from adult offenders. In 1980, congress added an amendment that required juveniles be removed from adult facilities. The 1980’s and 1990’s have had some significant changes in the treatment of juvenile offenders. States have added to their purpose clauses of juvenile code phrases such as “Hold juveniles accountable for criminal behavior”, “Provide effective deterrents”, and “Impose punishment consistent with the seriousness of the rime”. When a child commits a violent crime, are they automatically considered an adult? Or is the child incapable of fully understanding their actions? Studies suggest that the prefrontal lobe of the brain, which many scientists believe plays a crucial role in inhibiting inappropriate behavior, may not be fully developed until the age of twenty. Many experts also believe that children do not possess the moral or intellectual capacity to fully understand the consequences for their actions. They argue that youth lack the capacity to be defendants at an adult trial.

Many experts contend that rehabilitation in a juvenile detention center is more beneficial for the youth and for society compared to releasing someone who has spent their childhood and young adult life in the prison system. A youth coming out of the juvenile rehabilitation system is less likely to commit a crime than someone coming out of the adult prison system. Charles Wardell, a defense attorney for juvenile offenders, has said “Children do not have the mental capacity to be responsible enough to drive, drink or vote, so why should they be tried as adults for a crime? Wardell was the defense attorney in the case of thirteen year old Nathaniel Abraham, who was charged with murder. In 1997, when Nathaniel was 11, he fired a . 22 caliber rifle, striking and killing eighteen year old Ronnie Green Jr. Nathaniel’s defense admits that he did fire the gun, but he was aiming at trees, and the murder was not premeditated. They also claim that Nathaniel has the mental capacity of someone years younger. Nathaniel is facing life in prison without parole. It is undecided if Nathaniel will stand trial as an adult or juvenile, but the prosecutors feel he should be tried as an adult.

Nathaniel has a history of crimes that include burglary, larceny, home invasion, arson, beating two teens with a metal pipe, and stealing a woman’s purse at gun point. Sean Colston, prosecutor in the case, said “Once these kids go through the juvenile system and get slapped on the wrist, basically they feel there are no consequences for their actions. You’ve really got to hit them hard and let them know that number one; there are consequences for your actions. And number two, society does take these crimes seriously. ” Nathaniel was sentenced to nine years of juvenile imprisonment.

The legal authorities hoped that the rehabilitation efforts would change his mental state and help him to be a productive citizen. After serving his time and being out for only sixteen months, Nathaniel was back in court on charges of marketing of controlled substances; crystal meth and ecstasy. Nathaniel showed little sign of remorse during his court appearance. When New York Times asked Julie Kay about trying teenagers as adults, she said “Trying juveniles as adults sends a clear message that crimes such as murder, rape, and assault will not be tolerated and that perpetrators must accept the consequences of their actions. On the other side of the argument, eighteen year old Roco Nieves said “People need to realize that teenagers are not adults. Many youths don’t consider the consequences of their actions. Teens act out of emotions and don’t make long-range plans. Because we are different, society makes rules to “protect” us–from cars, credit cards, nightclubs, cigarettes, and alcohol. It’s ridiculous to also make laws that do the exact opposite, treating us like adults when we need help the most. ” In the early 1990’s, perceptions of a violent juvenile crime epidemic were fueled by extensive media coverage.

This, in part, caused governors and legislators to “get tough” on violent juvenile crimes. A 1996 study into juvenile related crimes uncovered the following facts. The juvenile violent crime arrest rate remained the relatively constant from the early 1970’s to the late 1980’s, increased 64% between 1988 and 1994, and dropped 12% from 1994 to 1996. Similarly, the number of juveniles arrested for murder more than doubled between the mid-1980’s and the peak in 1993, representing a percentage change far greater than the increase in adult murder arrests.

These facts, and the publicity that surrounded them, focused national attention on the juvenile violent crime problem. Three points are worth considering: 1. Juveniles are not responsible for most violent crimes: Based on FBI clearance data, in 1986 juveniles were responsible for 9% of all violent crimes (5% of all murders) and in 1996 they accounted for 13% of all violent crimes (8% of all murders). Although these statistics represent an increased share for juveniles, even in 1996, adults were responsible for 7 out of every 8 violent crimes. . Juvenile violence is declining but is still at much higher levels than a decade ago: 1996 was the second year in a row the juvenile violent crime arrest rate declined (9% from the 1995 level). However, even with this decline, the number of violent juvenile crime arrests in 1996 was 60% above the 1987 level. 3.

Today’s juveniles do not commit more acts of violence than did members of the previous generation, but more juveniles are violent. Research by NCJJ investigated whether there is a new breed of violent juveniles, or “super predators. Study findings imply that recent increases in juvenile violent crime were not due to a new breed of juveniles who commit violent crimes with greater regularity, but to the fact that more of the juvenile population was being brought into the justice system for violent acts. Professor Michele Deitch, an attorney who teaches juvenile justice policy at the LBJ School and the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, researched how America is treating pre-adolescence children, mainly twelve and under, who commit serious crimes.

The report finds that more than half the states allow children age twelve and under to be treated as adults for criminal justice purposes. Some key findings from Deitch’s report are: * Every year, nearly 80 children age 13 and younger are judicially transferred to adult court. Between 1985 and 2004, 703 children age 12 and under, and 961 children age 13 were judicially transferred to adult court. The total number of young children in adult criminal court is much higher than this.

The data do not include the number of children sent to the adult system through automatic transfer laws or laws allowing prosecutors to file cases directly in adult court. * Many of these young children are being treated as adults for relatively minor offenses. There are almost as many youth treated as adults for property crimes as for crimes against persons. Determinations about when and whether a young child will be treated as an adult are marked by extreme arbitrariness, unpredictability and racial disparities. * On a single day in 2008, 7,703 children under age 18 were held in adult local jails and 3,650 in adult state prisons.

In these adult facilities, the youth face vastly higher risks of physical and sexual assault and suicide than they would face in juvenile facilities. The youngest children are at particular risk. * The United States is severely out of step with international law and practice. Most countries—including those Western nations most similar to the United States, countries in the developing world, Islamic nations and even countries often considered to be human rights violators—repudiate the practice of trying young children as adults and giving them long sentences.

Deitch’s report also makes recommendations to state and national policy makers which include: * Keep young children in the juvenile justice system. Access to the adult system must be restricted in several ways, including by raising the age for transfer, eliminating automatic-transfer laws and direct-file laws for young children and creating reverse-transfer laws allowing criminal court judges to return children to juvenile court at any stage of processing. * Disallow mandatory sentencing of young children in adult criminal court.

Mandatory sentencing laws intended to apply to adults should be more flexible when applied to children who are transferred to adult court. Judges should have the discretion to take account of their youth and amenability to rehabilitation as mitigating circumstances. * Always provide parole opportunities for young children transferred to the adult criminal justice system, regardless of sentence length. Children as young as 7 could receive a mandatory sentence of life. Young children in the adult criminal justice system should be housed in juvenile facilities. Young children must not be mixed with the adult criminal population. Any adult correctional facility holding juveniles should be required to comply with professional standards and should be subject to independent oversight of the children’s confinement conditions without parole in Florida and Pennsylvania.

In 1995, the Oregon legislature fundamentally rewrote the mission statement of the juvenile justice system. The legislation, known as Senate bill (S. 1, changed the purpose of the juvenile justice system from a child welfare approach to a system that promotes accountability, responsibility, and punishment. Among the many changes that were enacted in 1995, the expanded use of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines set forth in Ballot Measure 11 gave strength to the State’s new emphasis on punishment and accountability. The provision required that any juvenile age 15, 16, or 17 at the time of the offense who is charged with committing murder, first- or second-degree assault, or first or second-degree robbery must be tried as an adult in criminal court.

Conviction for such an offense would result in a mandatory minimum sentence, varying in length from 5 to 25 years, depending on the crime. Any youth convicted of one of these offenses would be placed in the physical custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) while legal custody would remain with the Department of Corrections (DOC). OYA can keep an offender until age 25, after which the youth may be placed in the physical custody of adult corrections (DOC). However, with the passage of S. 049 in 1997, Oregon showed early signs of a retreat from mandatory minimums by making several adjustments. Essentially, juveniles convicted of second-degree robbery, second-degree assault, or second-degree kidnapping may receive sentences other than the mandatory minimum if certain conditions are met. The criteria to be considered vary by the offense and include factors such as whether the victim was physically injured, whether a deadly weapon was used, and whether this was a juvenile’s first offense.

If not a first offense, the number and type of prior convictions are taken into account. Upon consideration of such criteria, the sentencing judge may deviate from the mandatory minimums spelled out in Ballot Measure 11. During the 1997 legislative session, Louisiana enacted a law that required juveniles adjudicated delinquent by the juvenile court to be transferred at age of majority (17), without the benefit of a hearing, to adult corrections facilities to serve the remainder of their juvenile court disposition. Note: South Carolina has a longstanding statute that authorizes a similar procedure. ) The Louisiana code, effective July 14, 1997, was promptly challenged in the East Baton Rouge Parish Juvenile Court and ultimately struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court as a violation of a juvenile’s due process rights guaranteed under the State constitution. The provision would have required juveniles to perform hard labor without an opportunity for a jury trial.

In its legal opinion, the Court provided a historical synopsis of the juvenile justice system and important features of the system and commented: “The changing nature of juvenile crime has endangered changes in the nature of the juvenile delinquency adjudication which have blurred the distinction between juvenile and adult procedures…The legislation before us today represents a wholesale reversal of one hundred years of state policy wherein adjudicated juvenile delinquents have been treated in a non-criminal fashion…The hallmark of special juvenile procedures is their non-criminal nature.

If, after adjudication in the juvenile court, the juvenile can be committed to a place of penal servitude and required to perform hard labor alongside convicted felons, then the entire claim of parens patriae becomes a hypocritical mockery. ” In a poll of American Adults in 1997, people responded overwhelmingly that they opposed juveniles being housed in adult prisons, jailing status offenders with adults and granting prosecutors exclusive discretion over whether juveniles should be tried as adults. In the same poll, respondents also said that they strongly favored setting aside funds specifically for juvenile crime prevention programs.

On May 5, 1994, Michael Fay, an American, was publicly caned in Singapore for vandalism. America condemned Singapore for this act and afterwards, the United States Trade Representative said that he would try to prevent the World Trade Organization’s meeting from taking place in Singapore. America then signed an international treaty condemning the imprisonment and treatment of juveniles as criminals as a last resort. In contrast, many states have actually increased the number of crimes for which juveniles may be tried as adults. Some states have even called for the abolishment of juvenile courts altogether.

Getting rid of juvenile courts is not the answer. The courts need to focus on rehabilitation along with crime deterrence. According to Christine Chamberlain, Massachusetts is a model for juvenile justice. Massachusetts’ legislative waiver mandates that any juvenile between the ages of fourteen and seventeen accused of murder in the first or second degree be automatically tried in adult court, subject to adult penalties. The juvenile court does not retain any jurisdiction over these offenders. Massachusetts law also effectuates punishment through its creation of the category of “youthful offender. Juveniles who were between the ages of fourteen and seventeen at the time of the alleged offense and who are accused of committing particular offenses may be treated as youthful offenders for sentencing purposes. Specifically, a youthful offender must be accused of committing an offense that could be punishable by imprisonment if committed by an adult. In addition, a youthful offender must have a prior commitment to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) or be accused of committing either specific firearm offenses or an offense involving the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm.

In addition to providing more focus on punishment, Massachusetts’ legislative waiver and youthful offender statutes also expand the focus of the juvenile justice system to provide greater deterrence. The increased focus on punishment through legislative waiver also provides deterrence because of the possibility that a juvenile will receive an adult sentence of life in prison for the crime of murder. Additionally, the possible blended juvenile and adult sentences or extended juvenile sentence should deter older juveniles from committing crimes that would qualify them as youthful offenders.

In 1966, the case of Kent vs. The United States raised the question of when a juvenile should be transferred to an adult court. The Supreme Court listed eight factors that a judge must consider before transferring a juvenile to an adult court. 1. The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whether the protection of the community requires waiver. 2. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful behavior. 3.

Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons especially if personal injury occurred. 4. The prosecutive merit of the complaint, i. e. , whether there is evidence upon which a Grand Jury may be expected to return an indictment (to be determined by consultation of the United States Attorney). 5. The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile’s associates in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime in the U.

S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 6. The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his home, environmental situation, emotional attitude and pattern of living. 7. The record and previous history of the juvenile, including previous contacts with the Youth Aid Division, other law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts and other jurisdictions, prior periods of probation to this Court, or prior commitments to juvenile institutions. 8.

The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile (if he is found to have committed the alleged offense) by the use of procedures, services and facilities currently available to the Juvenile Court. The court concluded that juvenile defendants cannot be transferred to adult court without these due process protections. One of the most significant cases for juvenile justice was the 1967 case In re Gault. In this case, the court held that a juvenile charged with a delinquency in a juvenile court had six basic rights. 1. Notice of the charges; . Right to counsel 3. Right to confrontation and cross-examination; 4. Privilege against self-incrimination; 5. Right to a transcript of the proceedings; and 6. Right to appellate review. By instituting these due process protections, the Court aimed to restore juveniles’ faith in the system and thereby enable the system to more effectively attain its goal of rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Even though the juvenile and adult courts are now very similar, the juvenile justice system still has some unique features that reflect the goals of individualized treatment and rehabilitation.

Although the Supreme Court added due process protections to the juvenile justice system, juveniles do not have the right to a trial by jury in many states, whereas adults have the constitutional right to have a trial by jury. Also, the Supreme Court held that juveniles may be detained without bail pending adjudication because preventive detention protects the juvenile and society and is not intended to punish the juvenile. Adults have the right to apply for a bond or bail release. Lastly, juvenile court judges have a broad range of sentencing authority.

The sanctions a juvenile court judges may impose may be indeterminate and be based on both legal and non-legal factors. Adult sentences are usually determinate and based on the severity of the current offense and the criminal’s prior history. The adult prison system is overcrowded, and there is no clear evidence that it is more effective for juveniles who commit adult crimes. Research actually shows that juveniles placed in the adult system have a higher rate of recidivism than youth who are placed in the juvenile system.

Sending a youth through the adult system denies the juvenile system the chance to address the offender’s needs. The placing of juveniles into the adult system is an outgrowth of the offense-based justice system. It denies the discretion that is needed for individualized justice, which is at the heart of the juvenile justice system. It does not make sense to transfer youth to an overworked, overcrowded justice system. The juvenile justice is designed to help youth through treatment and rehabilitation. Many argue that successful rehabilitation is better for the youth and for society.

I think Rev. Jamal Bryant sums up the state of juvenile justice best: “To just throw our young people in jail without any regard for their future says we don’t have a regard for our collective futures. I’m not saying young people should not be punished – ‘spare the rod, spoil the child’ is the biblical principle. But I am saying that something ought to have happened in the early stages when it was seen that there was no strong parental oversight. We should look at some more creative and innovative ways to save our children…to save our future. ”